Slashdot Mirror
Woman Gets Revenge Courtesy of Google Images
another similar writes "This article teaches us that if you happen to have a bad break up with someone who's reasonably tech-savvy, your descriptively captioned photos might end up all over the internet. From the article: 'Upset boyfriends and girlfriends are nothing new. There are plenty of stories of girlfriends getting back at their ex-boyfriends for mistreatment and visa versa. But in the age where Google ranks supreme, you do not want to mess with a girl who knows how to manipulate Google.'"
Oops. I did, too. Poor Jack.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
If you discover you're dating a vengeful psycho bitch, don't ever break up with her.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
vice versa.
vice is pronounced either as one syllable or two (two is traditional).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
She could easily have done much worse than captions. Think 4chan.
If the genders had been reversed, he would have been judged guilty of criminal sexual assault and categorized as a violent sexual offender. Gotta love those double standards.
HIRE THIS GIRL! I wonder if she is the one who submitted this to /. ?
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
While her Google-fu may be good, I'd say that Mr. Weppler's ex could use some work in the wit and viciousness departments.
Without exception, the captions were humorless and(at least without some knowledge of Weppler's background and/or personal life/activities) not at all cutting. A few generic insults, some just nonsensical.
She also seems to have chosen a photo(looks almost like a studio shot rather than a candid) that, while it probably doesn't show him as a genius master of fashion(I'm no judge of this stuff, I can't tell), appears to be reasonably flattering. Neutral background, no embarrassing props/situations/penises sharpied onto his face. Hair and clothes, whether or not well chosen, are in good order, and the lighting is suppressing any facial acne/irregularities.
Plus, of course, you have to be Really Good to pull off insults without sounding pathetic and petty when you are exiting a relationship(even harder when you are the dumped party). Presumably, every one of your oh-so-trenchant insults is either fictitious, or pertains to a quality possessed by somebody you were happy to date until just recently. That takes comedic talent to dodge, and she appears to lack it.
If you must date make sure not to date psychopaths.
Better to just stay in the basement.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Journalism is dead.
If you are minor and cannot stand for yourself, even to the extent of having your mom stand up for you, you shouldn't have started dating in the first place.
Having a girlfriend is a fukken responsibility. The girl might actually be a little bitch, but her ex-boyfriend is a pussy beyond the hope of repair and totally deserves his fame.
In these days of a corporatized internet, it's endearing to know that one person with a bone to pick can still influence vast swaths of the public consumption of the internet.
Now if only she had managed to get the images on Google Images and had the links going to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0Gg
My minor son's ex-girlfriend took a copyrighted picture of him (we own copyright) and uploaded it more than 60 times to a website
This might be the first good time I can think of to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The mother should've sent a DMCA takedown notice to every company hosting the image including Google. Instead of going through barely monitored channels, it would have gone through the highest priority channels because if they don't respond to a DMCA takedown notice in a timely manner, they're liable for damages.
Based on the things the sick girl wrote on the images, it would seem the parents have a good case for libel against her. Many of her joking accusation are provably false and disparaging.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Sorry, but judging from the photos and the clueless text on them I guess the storry is completely made up.
Regards
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I can't figure out why this is news in any way. First off, TFA suggests that they are minors. So just to set the stage, we're essentially talking about a teenage breakup here. Not a great start. Next, we have a girl who decided it would be fun to post images of her boyfriend all over the Internet. Wow, that's a new one! I've never heard of anything like this before! And to top it all off, the double standard here is absurd. As another poster already mentioned, if the shoe was on the other foot, no one would think it's funny or cute in any way. So Slashdot has devolved into a gossip tabloid now? Wonderful.
Now I see why the "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." tag was removed from the top of the site.
What in the world does this have to do with Jack Weppler?
Could be something his ex thought about him? ;)
More on topic, I am glad they gave the error 200 info in TFA. I was about to mention that a friend had a girl problem. One thing about the ordeal was how responsive the Google URL removal tool was. Just about the only thing he had nice to say about anything related to the issue.
Home of The Suki Series
he'd embrace it, and put up some pages of his own - pointing out specifically why someone shouldn't get involved with {nameof} bitch. He might also point out that psychos are great sex, while it lasts.
At least I know what he looks like, so if I see him I can tell Jack I'm sor--
She just uploaded his picture to MemeGenerator.
This should be in Idle at best.
Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
If my date ever wanted to know a thing about my past relationship, she would just *ask*. No need to say that if I ever found her grepping my phone for things, she wouldn't be my date anymore. That's awful to date anyone distrustful to that extent.
But again, maybe that's precisely the reason why I don't have any dates. The 21st century is sick.
The story doesn't make sense.. The images are still on www.memegenerator.net and have not been removed at all..
I suspect this is just a hoax, viral marketing or social experiment of some sort.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
And, couldn't the captioned works be considered derivative works, for purpose of commentary and satire?
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
It isn't because it was a female on male incident. If it was a male on female incident, it would be.
Some proper moderation of links would be useful. *beware, links contain pictures of a mans junk*
Christians, Jews (and, to be fair also Muslims) worship a god that had a man's daughters sleep with him, and had a kid steal his brothers birthright via fraud.
The house here isn't glass, it's that special breakable sugarglass they use in movies.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Leave your mother out of this.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
So going to http://memegenerator.net/ and creating dozens of captioned pictures is considered tech savvy these days?
She didn't manipulate google or anything for that matter. The moment you create an image there, it's placed in a spot that Google can immediately recognize. She named the "character" and then created a dozen different phrases for him. She even abused the service because you have to certify that you have the legal authority to use/distribute the image you upload, and if the picture is what the mother and son claim it is, she had no right.
An 8 year old child could have done this.
My ex-wife made the mistake of being a bitch and posting false statements about me. They bordered on libel, but not enough to be worth suing over. Instead, I posted a few things about her that were not at all good for her image but were 100% true. Shortly thereafter googling her name resulted in that post being in the #`1 spot. She threw a hissy fit and threatened to sue me for libel, defamation, etc. I told her to point out any false statements and I would be happy to remove them. I also told her to feel free to sue. She didn't bother to take it any further.
If she hadn't started the hate-fest I would not have made public postings about her.
-- Will program for bandwidth
So, she writes Google Webmaster Help and demands they remove the image search results because it's a violation of copyright, and her son is a minor.
Um, no. Showing images in image search does not violate the copyright holder's rights. Perhaps the site hosting the images is violating copyright...but even there I wonder. Is this infringement? I don't think so, just like I don't think Shepard Fairey's work constitutions plagiarism, but either way you go on this the question is there.
Her son is a minor. So what? What's that got to do with Google?
In a free society, does someone have the right to express their opinion about someone else?
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
(probably an urban legend...) Guy is going on a 2 week biz trip; as he leaves the apt, he says to his live in girl friend, I want to break up, when I get back I want you and your stuff outta my apt. .....)
(silence)
Guy comes back, place is spotless, all her stuff is gone.
He notices phone is off the hook
What does he hear ??
At the tone, the time in Tokyo is..
(for you young'uns, it used to be really $$ to make a call overseas, like dollars a minute
Seconding....37th-ing the notion that if a man did this to a woman, the article would have a completely different tone ("Creepy Stalker Ex Abuses Internets, Police Taking Note"). That aside...
FTFA: "You see, she knew to have the source site remove the images but Google still has them in their index. The issue is that although the images appear to be gone, the URLs they are sourced via are actually returning a 200 status code, which to Google means they are still there. They need to return a page not found status code, and they do not."
In 2011, does GIS or any other search facility still take non-error status codes at their word? Has any commercial site since 2001 or so actually ever returned a 404 response to a non-existent page, rather than an arbitrary ad-happy landing page or redirect to the homepage?
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Are you really trying to claim this girl is expressing her opinion? It's harassment, plain and simple.
"But in the age where Google ranks supreme, you do not want to mess with a girl who knows how to manipulate Google.'"
Guys, to be safe, you should only date blondes.
Thanks for proving GPs point. Hilariously two more dullards have modded this insightful. This oh-poor-victim-me-male attitude is reaching epidemic proportions apparently.
Can you cite any statutory provision which makes posting a "fully-clothed ex with caption" sexual assault when a male is the poster, but not when the female is the poster, from any jurisdiction anywhere on Earth?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Depends on where you are. In some places in the world it would be considered harassment and defamation of character.
Om, nomnomnom...
See 4chan for examples of that. This isn't even a good story.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Look, just do what everyone in civilized countries have done since the decline of dueling. Sue the bitch for slander. It's amazing how money helps a person recover emotionally from slander.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Exactly!
Everyone thinks it is funny when it is a girl but if it was a guy he'd be under arrest by now.
I'm Jack's publicist. We go on tour to push his new book deal next week. And we're looking at not one, but TWO sit-coms, after he does that new reality TV show (booked last night).
From the article: 'Upset boyfriends and girlfriends are nothing new. There are plenty of stories of girlfriends getting back at their ex-boyfriends for mistreatment and visa versa. But in the age where Google ranks supreme, you do not want to mess with a girl who knows how to manipulate Google.'"
Visa Versa? That's priceless!
the story in the post is stupid, boring, and as others have pointed out, does not involve "Google-Fu". if a girl does it to a guy, it's boring. if a guy does it to a girl, it's boring.
but I honestly don't understand this "Men are the victims of PC-ness" meme. It's not true. It was never true. It refuses to die.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
You really want revenge, post his picture and phone number to craigslist in the MFM section, asking asking those interested "call any time!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
We'd just call her a psycho bitch and no one would be even a little impressed. She'd also never get a date again since no intelligent person wants to be on the wrong end of her. The same would happen to a guy if he did it.
Today, women get praised because she did it on the Internet ... and a guy would end up being taken to jail, labeled a sex offender and have his life ruined.
Seriously people, what the fuck is wrong with you? This behavior is unacceptable. Do not give her attention. The entire event and everything she does should be ignored, herself included. We seriously need to stop giving people who behave unacceptably any attention.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Showing images in image search does not violate the copyright holder's rights.
According to the law, or according to your personal sense of justice?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I've heard that the bird is the word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184
That's ok, apparently no one would ever want you because you don't know how to capitalize.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
1 - I agree strongly with everybody saying this woman had better suffer the same backlash a male would over such behavior.
2 - Unless the gender inequality is the motivation of this "news" item, I'm pretty sure we are the wrong target market for this story.
Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
Any evidence to the contrary? Anyone remember that whole story about the "lawyers assistant" who quit through a series of photos? Turned out to be fake.
I barely buy anything on the internet unless it comes with time stamps, sworn and filed affidavits and the pixels don't look shopped.
No girls name, no links to actual moms post. No proof other than a stock photo that Jack Weppler even exists.
There isn't such a provision, but when has that ever stopped people from freaking out?
If you can't convince them, convict them.
You believe that Google Images violates copyright law whenever it displays a copyrighted image as the result of an image search?
Please, do go on and develop your point further...this should be good.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Google falls under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. Simply having an image appear on google search doesn't violate the copyright holder's rights. Keeping it up there after a copyright holder complained would indeed violate the holders rights.
At least, this is my understanding of the legal issues, I'm not a lawyer.
You're an idiot.
Oops. Did I just open myself up to a lawsuit? Are you legally damaged? If I'd included your picture with "idiot" written across the bottom, would that change things? What if I posted it on the web and it was popular?
I'm not saying she's doing a great and ethical thing here. I'm saying it's not illegal to publicly hate on someone unless it actually does rise to the level of violating that person's rights. No one has the right to force others to not talk about them, though. That's cuz growed-ups made the laws.
Although, this whole incident does bring to mind another such situation that happened just a few months ago. Here's the relevant quote from the guy that thinks the same way as you: "Ya dun goofed! ...And the consekences will nevar be teh same!!!!"
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
You don't know Jack.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I think the only real bruised ego is that of the girl.
As hilarious as this is, it's also quite pathetic. If you're upset that your boyfriend dumped you then don't start some kind of online smear campaign. She's been dumped and couldn't handle it. Sad figure.
Those are separate issues altogether; as pertains to copyright, there's a pretty good leg to stand on, should that be the only item of complaint.
Harassment, which would more properly line up as a criminal action, could be pursued, but if the party publishing the images wasn't given notice to stop doing so (or ceased doing so once such notice was received), it'd be hard to make a case--and in this case, being that the captions were mostly juvenile garbage, it's hard to imagine a prosecutor pushing the complaint to begin with. As for defamation--libel, in this case--you would have to prove harm to the victimized party for it to have much chance; again, given the juvenile nature of the taunts, and the age of the victimized party, it wouldn't lead to much anyhow. Perhaps, as he reaches adulthood, should something like this cost him a lucrative job offer, it might be cleanly actionable, but that's a bit away.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
what does this mean?
"...you do not want to mess with a girl who knows how to manipulate Google.'"
Nerds forever! Same old, same old.
But hey dude, lighten up. This is slashdot:
"stay the ever-loving hell away from women" is our motto!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm guessing it might, just might, be the posting to slashdot thing rather than minor writing problems.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
It's not clear they don't violate copyright law--we just assume they don't because google image search is normal to us. But they're making copies of someone else's copyrighted works, after all. Maybe they are violating copyright. I don't remember reading a case on it, though, so maybe nobody has decided yet.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Is that true even when it is google, rather than a third-party poster, who posts the copyrighted content to google?
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Because she's a psycho, or because it takes a lot of technical skillz to put an image on Memegenerator?
Yeah, I was wondering when someone would point that out. Too many clueless people thinking they understand copyright law when they obviously have no clue.
Copyright is held by the photographer unless there is paperwork stating otherwise. While the family probably got a license to have the photo duplicated and rights to distribute it, I doubt the photographer signed away his copyright.
The secret is to out-crazy the crazy girl.
Keeping it up there after a copyright holder complained would indeed violate the holders rights.
Exactly. GP was saying they could keep it up indefinitely and it would never violate the holder's rights or give the holder cause to complain.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
You believe that Google Images violates copyright law whenever it displays a copyrighted image as the result of an image search?
No. Did I say that I did?? No, I asked a question.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I'll agree with this poster. It's very nice to read semi-intelligent posts from people with diverse backgrounds (albeit mostly nerdy) that frequent slashdot. Several times, I've fallen for a story only to read the postings and realize that it's mostly bunk. Without other well thought out opinions, people tend to believe what they are told, much like people watching fox news or npr are further brainwashed by what they hear day after day.
It's just that there's a social stigmata attached to
I'm off topic, but fyi stigmata is the plural of stigma.
--
.nosig
Not a priest, a monk. Monks aren't exposed to the young ones, they have to bugger each other in the crypts.
Haha, literally broke the silence of my office with hysterical laughter. I'm sorry for the guy, but this is just too damn funny.
-sigh- What do you think the answer to your question is?
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
So you missed the whole fair use legal flap about Google search? Then the one about Google Images? Then the one about Google Books?
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
He doesn't know the difference between "knew" and "new" either.
> Well, that and the fact that not many girls think dinner in a basement is romantic.
Nice guess, but I have a fifth floor apartment and no basement at all. As well as possessing some skills in “romantic talk” girls tend to like, but which I'm constantly aware to be total and absolute bullshit.
I think it takes quite a time to find a girl these days who would have honesty, trustworthiness, self-sacrifice, you name it, at a higher priority than making nonsensical poems about her (which are lousy quality ripoffs anyway), flowers (never found a delight in giving dead plants which last for several days tops), and dancing abilities (something which I was never interested in having).
And if you ever find a girl not full of the sickeningly romantic bullshit, she will inevitably accuse you of not yet having a luxurious car or a similarly luxurious house (or better yet, both).
Life sucks, and then you die.
is forced.
But... the future refused to change.
That "article" is just an attempt to drive traffic to that site, which is un-interestingly enough, a SEO news site. Of course the site doesn't generate any content, beyond poorly written articles about things that don't matter. I'm curious as to how it made it up onto /.at all. Sigh.
I worked for a company that grew into SEO. It's a joke. Everyone with half a brain knows it. Unfortunately a lot of marketing people don't have half a brain so SEO continues to generate revenue. Instead of getting a decent web developer, marketing types pay enormous sums of money for people to look at their meta tags and give advice about what to put into h1 headers. Its retarded.
I remember there was a flap (on the images) and a lawsuit (on the books). I don't recall a lawsuit on the images, or the results of a court holding. But I also haven't bothered to Google it. =)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
There isn't such a provision.
Case dismissed.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
You don't need to Google it. Just review the facts you already know:
Seems to be a big no-brainer that someone would bring the pain if they thought they had a slam-dunk case. And they have, lots...simple as that. And no, Google doesn't violate copyrights. And yes, they may respond to requests to pull down embarrassing images, but not because they have to, and not because everyone in their position should have to.
So, for this case, scorned woman, says some nasty things about the guy. Some of it was kinda funny. She persists much longer, though, unless she's reeeeeeally really clever about it and turns out some grade-A comedy, who's gonna come out looking worse for wear? Him, or her? Who's accumulating the damage here after a point?
Hint: not him.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
-sigh- What do you think the answer to your question is?
I'm pretty sure the answer to my question is "According to severoon's personal sense of justice," because according to copyright law, once it's been removed from the original site and the copyright holder has requested it be removed from the search results, failure to remove it does violate the copyright holder's rights.
Does this mean I "believe that Google Images violates copyright law whenever it displays a copyrighted image as the result of an image search" as you allege? No, because these conditions don't apply "whenever it displays a copyrighted image". They apply in this case.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
So, for this case, scorned woman, says some nasty things about the guy. Some of it was kinda funny. She persists much longer, though, unless she's reeeeeeally really clever about it and turns out some grade-A comedy, who's gonna come out looking worse for wear? Him, or her? Who's accumulating the damage here after a point?
Hint: not him.
Are you sure? He's the only one whose picture is on all of this stuff and whose name is in the search. Yeah, we all know she was a total asshole, but we don't know who she is, so how is it damaging her?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Oh, so once it's removed from the site, at that point Google is in violation of copyright. Until they've updated their index, they're in flagrant, prosecutable violation of the law, huh?
Tell me, how do you explain the Internet Archive?
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Good point. If only there were some publicly accessible resource through which this fellow could identify her if he wanted to...
Alas, there is no such thing. If only, though, right?
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
I'm going to skip A) - I recall that passage differently, but don't care enough to look it up.
Regarding B) however? You're saying the part where he disguised himself in order to receive the blessing is moot then? The same way if you win the lottery and jokingly trade the ticket for a kiss from a pretty girl, then she forges the signature on the check to receive the prize money, it's not fraud?
You know, if the one true word of your God calls that ethical, you need to go shopping for a divinity that's read better books on ethics.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Oh, so once it's removed from the site, at that point Google is in violation of copyright. Until they've updated their index, they're in flagrant, prosecutable violation of the law, huh?
NO. I specifically said, "and the copyright holder has requested it be removed from the search results". Once the copyright holder makes that request of the search provider, they must take prompt, reasonable action to remove the material. This is all in US Code Title 17 Section 512, if you'd care to actually educate yourself instead of just stating your idealization of the world as fact.
Tell me, how do you explain the Internet Archive?
The Internet Archive has settled multiple lawsuits, in what is basically an admission that they were in violation of copyright. Most copyright holders don't go after them because it would be bad PR for little to no gain. It's the same reason Nintendo, Konami, Capcom, Tecmo, and Sunsoft haven't sued the pants off the guy who made this game.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Yeah, if I were him, I wouldn't have bothered trying to get the images taken down and would have just made even wittier ones of her, accompanied by an article making it completely clear that the only reason I would ever do such a thing was that she struck first.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Haha, you might have to import a divinity from another universe. Not sure if there is any deity on earth that had any sense of ethics or morality.
But i see your point.
It's kind of funny. I made a joke about "men's rights advocates" with someone earlier, then I read this a few days late because I'd forgotten to get around to it. And one of the early comments pretty much sums the problem with these people (and their wannabes). In it (I'm not scrolling to quote), they mention something to the effect that women will always be the ones who choose the mates.
You know, if you ever wonder why the stereotype of nerds includes the term "pathetic", there's a good one right there.
Every damn one of you whiners knows for a fact (deny it if you want) that there are countless "revenge on the ex-girlfriend" type of porn websites. People make fucking money off of this. And even if the majority are staged, you're full of shit if you say they all are. No one's raising a stink about it, no one's going to jail for it, no one's life is ruined (with the possible exception of the ex-girlfriend).
And you know, a lot of people like to think that whining is now an acceptable trait for masculinity. It's not. It is, however, an acceptable trait for being a loser.
Geez.
Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!